alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15269]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16932 and #16933; KENTUCKY Disaster Number KY-
00084]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Kentucky

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of KENTUCKY (FEMA-4595-DR), dated 04/23/
2021.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 02/27/2021 through 03/14/2021.

DATES: Issued on 06/24/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/23/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/24/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of KENTUCKY, dated 04/23/2021, is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 07/23/2021.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-15269 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 50 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance 

of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department 

of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) 

with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. ENZI, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ROBERTS, 

Mr. BURR, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration 

for Children and Families of the Department of Health 

and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure 

authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 50 IS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Of2 fice of Family Assistance of the Administration for Chil3 dren and Families of the Department of Health and 

4 Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure au5 thority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance 

7 for Needy Families program (issued July 12, 2012, as the 

8 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Information 

9 Memorandum Transmittal No. TANF–ACF–IM–2012– 

10 03, and printed in the Congressional Record on September 

11 10, 2012, on pages S6047–S6050, along with a letter of 

12 opinion from the Government Accountability Office dated 

13 September 4, 2012, that the Information Memorandum is 

14 a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule 

15 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60399, 333-65083
and 333-30380) of SAP Aktiengesellschaft Systeme, Anwendungen, Produkte in der
Datenverarbeitung (the "Company") of our report dated February 21, 2000,
contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and to all references to our Firm included in these
registration statements.


                                        Eschborn/Frankfurt/M., April 7, 2000


                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN
                                        Wirschaftsprufungsgesellschaft
                                        Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH

                                        /s/ Prof. Dr. Weber   /s/ Klein
                                        -------------------   ------------------
                                        Prof. Dr. Weber       Klein
                                        Wirtschaftspruefer    Wirtschaftspruefer
#### BALLARD et al. v. BEVERIDGE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Virginius Ballard and others against Alven Beveridge.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 566.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934; and                               
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ Howard Root                        
| | Howard Root                            
| | Chief Executive Officer 
 July 22, 2010

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of the Secretary

      ( print page 39102)    
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

Iraq

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Yemen

Kevin Nichols,

International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy).

[FR Doc. 2021-15675 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P
#### LEVY, Appellant, v. GREENWICH INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 8, 1898.)

Action by Becky Levy against the Greenwich Insurance Company of the City of New York.

No opinion. Order modified by reducing the amount to be paid as condition of opening the default to the sum of $20, and striking therefrom the provision that the plaintiff submit to an examination. No costs of this appeal to either party.
# C_2019288EN.01005801.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/58

---

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-401/19)

(2019/C 288/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 673

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1498/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021182EN.01005102.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — EJ v EIB

(Case T-585/19) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Travel costs - Double dependent child allowance - Child with serious illness - Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance - Reasonable period - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2021/C 182/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: J. Klein, M. Loizou and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and on Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 16 February 2018 capping the backdated reimbursement of the recurring travel costs incurred by the applicant owing to her child’s serious illness at 18 months and of the decision of 23 March 2018 capping the backdated award of the double dependent child allowance at five years and, secondly, compensation for the material and pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
#### Surendra SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71935.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*437Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Surendra Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because it was filed nearly eight years after the BIA’s April 24, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Singh failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). It follows that Singh’s due process claim fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                    Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
               (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2005 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



By: /s/ Hua Meng
 ---------------------------------
Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer


September 15, 2006
# C_2022024EN.01002701.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Representation of red shoe lace aglets)

(Case T-298/19) (1)

(EU Trade Mark - Application for a figurative EU trade mark representing red shoe lace aglets - Rejection of application - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Essentially identical previous application - No res judicata - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 24/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, S. Hanne and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 (Case R 1170/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing red shoe lace aglets as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                          
|---------------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                            
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                             
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New
  Jersey Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
  June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director
  of New Jersey Mining Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.

|Date:                                                      | August 10, 2007         | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|                                                           |                         | 
|By                                                         | /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH | 
|Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer
      & Director |                        

---
S. Con. Res. 2 Agreed to January 18, 2011

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

Concurrent Resolution 

Whereas John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected to the United States 

House of Representatives and served from January 3, 1947, to 

January 3, 1953, until he was elected by the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts to the Senate where he served from January 

3, 1953, to December 22, 1960; 

Whereas on November 8, 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was 

elected as the 35th President of the United States; and 

Whereas on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy was sworn in 

as President of the United States and delivered his inaugural 

address at 12:51pm, a speech that served as a clarion call to 

service for the Nation: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR AN EVENT 

HONORING PRESIDENT KENNEDY. 

The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to 

be used on January 20, 2011, for a ceremony in honor of the 

50th anniversary of the inaugural address of President John F. 

Kennedy. Physical preparations for the conduct of the ceremony 
S. Con. Res. 2—2 

shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
[Cite as Hicks v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011-Ohio-3771.]



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

CHRIS HICKS

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2010-11030-AD

Clerk Miles C. Durfey

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Chris Hicks, filed this acti on against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending that his 2001 Honda Civic was damaged as a
proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous
condition in a construction area on Interstate 75 in Warren County. Plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $461.85, plus filing fee reimbursement of $25.00. The filing
fee was paid.
{¶ 2} ODOT filed an investigation report requesting that plaintiff’s claim be
dismissed, advising that the claim was paid and settled by ODOT contractor, John R.
Jurgensen Company. Defendant provided a copy of check number 00499119 issued to plaintiff by John R. Jurgensen Company in the amount of $486.85.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶ 3} R.C. 2743.02(D) in pertinent part states: “Recoveries against the state shallbe reduced by the aggregate of insurance proc eeds, disability award, or other collateral
recovery received by the claimant.” Upon review, the court finds that the money
received by plaintiff is a recovery from a collateral source.



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

CHRIS HICKS

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2010-11030-AD

Clerk Miles C. Durfey

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth
in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.
The court shall absorb the court costs for this claim in excess of the filing fee.

________________________________ MILES C. DURFEYClerk

Entry cc:

Chris Hicks Jerry Wray, Director 269 Village Drive Department of Transportation Springboro, Ohio 45066 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223
RDK/laa 3/2 Filed 4/20/11 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/29/11